Not Stephen's most hard-hitting interview, but I'm glad he had her on. Worth a thumbs-up in my book.
85 view(s)
https://buy-zithromax.online buy kamagra usa https://antibiotics.top buy stromectol online https://deutschland-doxycycline.com https://ivermectin-apotheke.com kaufen cialis https://2-pharmaceuticals.com buy antibiotics online Online Pharmacy vermectin apotheke buy stromectol europe buy zithromax online https://kaufen-cialis.com levitra usa https://stromectol-apotheke.com buy doxycycline online https://buy-ivermectin.online https://stromectol-europe.com stromectol apotheke https://buyamoxil24x7.online deutschland doxycycline https://buy-stromectol.online https://doxycycline365.online https://levitra-usa.com buy ivermectin online buy amoxil online https://buykamagrausa.net
Oh my. The video already has 7K thumbs down and 4K up. Wow, classy.
terrorizing women? give me a break.
+Travis Cobb I'd say getting rape threats and death threats and having your home address publicized, sometimes all in the same messages, kind of applies.
That is, but video games aren't terrorizing women, and producing them isn't an act of terrorism against women, even if they are shallow and sexually explicit.
To my knowledge (could be wrong, as I haven't read all up on gamergate) but the people being harassed are the ones that want to alter everyone's gaming experience because they don't like some aspect of it.
If a man complained that romance novels portray men unrealistically and set up unrealistic standards, then publicly worked to have romance novels changed, then I would expect some nasty pushback from the target audience. Sure murder and rape threats are out of line, but calling him or her a busybody jackass (or worse) seems in order.
+Travis Cobb I recommend bumping up your knowledge. Your strawman argument about the harassed people wanting to change the gaming experience is just not true.
But let's suppose for a second that was the case. You are justifying bomb threats, death threats, rape threats, mass murder threats, and other despicable acts because someone doesn't like the content of a video game? Do those really equate in your eyes?
I justify no such thing, I said that was out of line.
What's her argument? That games primarily sold to young men shouldn't use sex to sell? Like music and movies and any other aspect of the entertainment industry?
+Travis Cobb
There's a difference between sex and objectification. There's a difference between sex and fetishizing violence against women. I'm really kind of gobsmacked that I have to say that.
If you really want to know what Anita Sarkeesian's arguments are, maybe watch her videos and educate yourself.
+Laura Foster You don't have to say that, I'm surprised you surmise that I don't know the difference. Does the entertainment industry not sell objectification all across the spectrum? Yes, often it does, and gaming is but one facet.
I'm not really interested in her arguments, I watched this video and was commenting on that discussion. From a casual point of view it looks like someone poked a hornets nest and got huffy when the hornets came out.
+Travis Cobb 1. I agree that video games are not terrorizing women. I would suggest that many video games objectify women, though, or tacitly approve of their objectification, or reward violence against them.
2. The people being "harassed" aren't necessarily calling for "everyone's gaming experience" to be "altered," but would like to see, for example, some action-focused games where women are not treated as sex objects, targets for aggression, etc. — and, perhaps, to see acknowledged that there are a lot of very popular video games that are problematic in that fashion.
3. I don't think calling anyone a busybody or a jackass deserves anything more than being called a busybody or jackass in return. If that's all that were happening here, I think there wouldn't be nearly the publicity nor the concern.
+Dave Hill there are certainly games that reward violence of all kinds. If there are achievements designed around targeting women for violence then that's pretty messed up, but not drastically more messed up than blowing off thirty heads in a row.
If Anita wants to kickstart a game that makes fun of the chauvinistic aspects of gaming then she should be able to without being threatened.
I don't see the connection between sexual objectification and violence against women. Violence is never acceptable, but it seems like a long, fruitless battle to attempt to remove all sexual objectification from the entertainment industry. And why should we? That would eliminate almost all music videos and 80% of movies, and most video games admittedly (not to mention all of porn). I don't personally have a problem with some objectification in sexuality, as long as you know that isn't the only thing they're for. The jackasses that threaten people probably don't see that difference, but they are a small, vocal, ignorant, minority of the overall gaming community, and it isn't gaming's fault that some of their acolytes are neanderthals. It's open enrollment.
Maybe more women should design videogames, and show that games that don't involve huge boobs and machine guns can be successful, there are many good examples already. To me, that would be the right tree to bark up, rather than trying to get the entire community to retrofit. We could put her theory about how many women gamers there are to the test. If she's right, the industry will change to follow the money.
That can be done without poking the hornets nest, but you won't be on tv for it. I guess one would have to decide what's more important.
+Travis Cobb you can continue to make the same point as many times as you like but it will continue to be a strawman that no one is making but you. Go watch Anita's videos. She's and others aren't trying to take away the precious games that objectify women (as if that would actually be a bad thing). She's asking for games that actually portray women differently.
Even though they sound the same they are not. One is asking for removal of "x" (an argument no one is actually making). And the other is asking for more of "y". In the latter you can still have your male dominated worldly games.
Then she should be a game designer, no?
No idea what that has to do with anything. So because she isn't a video game designer she is not allowed to speak her opinion on YouTube which is essentially a video platform for speaking one's opinion?
If you dont like her opinion there is nothing wrong with that from your perspective. Others may choose to disagree as we see the male dominated nature of video games to be more destructive than good.
I'm not sure I follow between suggesting that Sarkeesian should able develop a game without being threatened, and that people who make threats are a small minority of the gaming community, but that she shouldn't do anything that's "poking the hornets nest."
I just mean that she should expect some pushback if she intends to change the status quo. People threatening violence are going too far, people calling her names and trying to booo her off the stage are not.
+Travis Cobb Yes, when you challenge the status quo, you should expect pushback. If that pushback was simply people saying, "She's wrong, I like games the way they are," that would be what we call a difference of opinion. That opposition to her opinion has gone well beyond that is, itself, noteworthy.
Agreed Dave. Its obvious to me when you have 4chan members dox'ing Anita that things have gone a bit far. Or when you have counter videos attacking her with ad hominems calling her a fraud, etc that people are missing the point.
I have yet to see GamerGate'rs actually disagree and try to have a debate. Instead they seem intent to go after her "character" and other angles as if that somehow invalidates her points. As well the whole GamerGate group seem intent on going after small fish and folks like Anita instead of real issues of ethics in journalism.
+Jon Weber The whole "ethics in gaming journalism" thing feels disingenuous. It's a topic that's bee debated for over a decade, and has next to nil with what the GamerGate set seem actually upset about (at best it's used as an ad hominem attack against some of their critics). If anything, the topic has gotten smeared by association.
Agreed, not to mention I'm still confused how the "poor ethics" actually negatively impact gaming. I think there is something about EA paying off one of the major video game review sites. Though I have yet to see GamerGate'rs attack EA or the review site (I think IGN?). In any case, the friends I know that video game do it out of loyalty to a brand, producer, game style, and preview videos. Basically what you would expect.
It is within the realm of possibilities that I can be convinced of real ethics issues that are having a real impact. I'm just waiting for the evidence that is something other than, "Dude this chick hates men and is a total bitch."
+Jon Weber To the extent that some people rely on game mag ratings for games, then inappropriate relationships between game creators / publishers and the media reviewing them are problematic. The question is, what is that extent, what is inappropriate, and how big of a problem is it.
But, like I said, that's sort of a sideshow to all of this. Which is unfortunate, in many ways.